JUDGMENT T. Vaiphei, J. 1. We have heard Mr. D. Guha, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the respondents. The short point which fails for consideration in this appeal is whether the decree of divorce passed by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura. Agartala on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage even after holding that the allegations of cruelty and desertion made by the respondent No. 1 against his wife were not established, is sustainable in law. 2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that his marriage with the appellant was solemnized according to Hindu religious rites on 22-1-1991. After the marriage, they started living together as husband and wife for a period of 10 days at his residence. The respondent No. 1, who was serving as Constable in the Border Security Force, left his house for joining his place of posting at Manipur leaving her under the care of his elder brother. The respondent No. 1 was then transferred to Meghalaya in the month of April, 1991. On expressing her reluctance to live with the family of his elder brother on the ground of maltreatment, the respondent No. 1 took her to his place of posting at Shillong where they lived together for a period of 8 months. During this period, the appellant conceived a child whereupon the respondent No. 1 brought her to village Goutamnagar and kept her there under the care of his elder brother where she gave birth to a male child. When the respondent No. 1 returned to his village in 1993 and requested the appellant to join him at his place of posting, she refused to accompany him. It is alleged by the respondent No. 1 that in the month of January, 1993, he got information from his elder-brother, his relatives and neighbours that the appellant had developed an illicit relationship with the respondent No. 2, namely Sri Ajoy Roy, thereby making him alert and keeping her at constant vigil. It is alleged by the respondent No. 1 that in the month of January, 1993, he got information from his elder-brother, his relatives and neighbours that the appellant had developed an illicit relationship with the respondent No. 2, namely Sri Ajoy Roy, thereby making him alert and keeping her at constant vigil. It is further alleged by the respondent No. 1 that one day, on entering into his house from outside, he heard the voice of the respondent No. 2 in-side his house, which changed his mind to enter into his house and kept close watch at his house from audible and visible distance and that from his observation he saw the respondent No. 2 about to depart when the appellant kissed him. The respondent No. 1 thereafter questioned the appellant about the incident but she could not give any satisfactory reply. It is the allegation of the respondent No. 2 that in the year 1994 when he returned from Kashmir on leave, he got information from his elder brother and sister-in-law that his wife was pregnant due to her affair with somebody else and that during his absence, she terminated her pregnancy at the instance of her mother. On being asked, the appellant told the respondent No. 1 that she had been suffering from abdominal pain and had to consult a doctor, who told her that a Gall-bladder stone was detected. According to the respondent No. 1, on his inquiry, no operation was done for removal of the Gall-bladder stone. The respondent No. 1 further alleged that in the month of November, 1994, when he visited his house again on leave, he found some of his belongings including Television set shifted to the house of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 also came to learn from his elder brother that his wife was enjoying with, and entertaining at the house of the respondent No. 2. The elder brother of the respondent No. 1 thereupon convened a meeting on 8-12-1994 in which the appellant and other villagers were present and that in that meeting the appellant was advised to rectify herself. The further allegation of the respondent No. 1 is that his wife used to spend a part of the clay at the house of the respondent No. 2 as and when he was temporarily absent. The further allegation of the respondent No. 1 is that his wife used to spend a part of the clay at the house of the respondent No. 2 as and when he was temporarily absent. According to the respondent No. 1, since the appellant was leading an immoral life, he filed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 3. The appellant contested the suit by filing her written statement, wherein she denied all the allegations of the respondents No. 1. She also claimed that the husband respondent No. 1 was making false and frivolous allegations for the purpose of filing the petition for dissolution of marriage. It was contended by the appellant that the grounds for dissolution of marriage urged by the respondent No. 1 was not tenable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case and thus prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The learned Additional District Judge on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following four issues :- "i) Did the respondent treat the petitioner with cruelty? ii) Is the respondent guilty for adultery? iii) Is the marriage between the parties is liable to be dissolved by a decree of divorce? iv) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to under law and equity?" The respondent No. 1 examined himself as P.W. 1 and the appellant-wife examined herself as D.W.1 and no other witnesses were examined on behalf of either of the parties. As noticed earlier, the Trial Court held that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant-wife led an adulterous life with the respondent No. 2 or behaved with him cruelly. Nevertheless, the Trial Court ordered dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the said respondent by a decree of divorce due to irretrievable breakdown of their marriage on the condition that the respondent No. 1 should pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the appellant for her maintenance and for the maintenance of her son till her remarriage. 5. The Trial Court in decreeing the suit had recorded the findings that the appellant and the respondent No. 1 were living separately since 1995 and that the respondent No. 1 never visited the appellant since 1995 even when he came to Tripura. 5. The Trial Court in decreeing the suit had recorded the findings that the appellant and the respondent No. 1 were living separately since 1995 and that the respondent No. 1 never visited the appellant since 1995 even when he came to Tripura. The Trial Court also observed that the relationship between the parties has virtually reached a point of no return, which could not be bridged. The Trial Court also apparently made an attempt to reconcile the parties by discussing with them on two occasions with the help of their respective Lawyers but did not succeed. The Trial Court has also observed that the husband called his wife as a characterless woman and that the wife also suggested that the husband was also maintaining a relationship with another woman. These were the reasons which apparently impelled the learned Additional District Judge to hold that the marriage between the parties had broken-down irretrievably and that it was a fit case for dissolution of marriage. 6. A number of case laws has been cited by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties in the course of hearing. We do not propose to overburden these judgments by referring to those cases. It will be sufficient for our purpose if reference is made to one or two cases. The first relevant case is Shyam Sunder Kohli v. Sushma Kohli alias Satya Devi, reported in AIR 2004 SC 5111 . In that case, the Apex Court was considering as to whether a marriage can be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The Apex Court held:- "12. On the ground of irretrievable break-down of marriage, the Court must not lightly dissolve a marriage. It is only in extreme circumstances that the Court may use this ground for dissolving a marriage. In this case, the respondent, at all stages and even before us, has been ready to go back to the appellant. It is the appellant who has refused to take the respondent back. The appellant has made baseless allegations against the respondent. He even went to the extent of filing a complaint of bigamy, under Section 494 IPC against the respondent. That complaint came to be dismissed. As stated above, the evidence shows that the respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home. It is the appellant who has been at fault. The appellant has made baseless allegations against the respondent. He even went to the extent of filing a complaint of bigamy, under Section 494 IPC against the respondent. That complaint came to be dismissed. As stated above, the evidence shows that the respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home. It is the appellant who has been at fault. It can hardly lie in the month of a party who has been at faults and who has not allowed the marriage to work to claim that the marriage should be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. We, thus, see no substance in this contention." 7. From the paragraph extracted above, it is evident that Courts are discouraged from granting a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and that it is only in extraordinary circumstances that this ground can be used for dissolving a marriage. The husband in that case was obviously refusing to take his wife back and had made baseless allegations against his wife to the extent of filing a complaint case of bigamy under Section 494 IPC against his wife, which was dismissed. The Apex Court has found from the evidence on record that it was the husband who has been at fault and who forced his wife to leave the matrimonial house. Disallowing the husband to take advantage of his fault, the Apex Court refused to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. 8. The second decision pertains to the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, reported in AIR 2005 SC 534 . The Apex Court held therein that though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for seeking divorce, the Court can direct the dissolution of marriage with a view to do complete justice and shorten the agony of the parties engaged in long-drawn legal battle and accordingly held that the appellant was entitled to get a decree of divorce. In this case, the following circumstances are noted by the Apex Court. The wife, after filing of the divorce petition filed a suit for Injunction and went to the extent of seeking detention of her husband. She also filed a petition for maintenance, which was also dismissed. Several caveat petitions were also lodged by her with wrong address. In this case, the following circumstances are noted by the Apex Court. The wife, after filing of the divorce petition filed a suit for Injunction and went to the extent of seeking detention of her husband. She also filed a petition for maintenance, which was also dismissed. Several caveat petitions were also lodged by her with wrong address. In her deposition she clearly accepted that she intended to proceed with the execution proceedings and prayer for arrest till the divorce case was finalized. The Apex Court observed that when the wife gives priority to her profession over her husband's freedom. It points unerringly at disharmony, diffusion and disintegration of marital unity, from which the Court can deduce about irretrievable breaking of marriage. Though the Apex Court was exercising Its Jurisdiction in this case under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it has also observed that In extreme cases the Court can direct dissolution of marriage on the ground that the marriage had broken down Irretrievably as held in Shyam Sunder Kohli case AIR 2004 SC 5111 (supra). A comparative reading of the aforecited cases will show that It Is not the legal position that Courts cannot direct dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under any circumstances. Whether a marriage can be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable break-down will necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. What Is noticeable in those cases Is that mere long absence of physical company cannot be a ground of divorce if the same was on account of the husband's conduct and that the husband, who is leading an adulterous life, cannot take advantage of his own fault. 9. In the instant case, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant ever treated the respondent No. 1 cruelly. There is also no evidence to show that the appellant was leading an adulterous life. No evidence is adduced by the respondent No. 1 to rebut the assertion made by the appellant that she was keen to live in a Joint mess with the family of her husband's brother. Her further claim that the Panchayat member tried to persuade the respondent No. 1 to take her with him, but he refused to do so, has not been denied by him. Her further claim that the Panchayat member tried to persuade the respondent No. 1 to take her with him, but he refused to do so, has not been denied by him. We cannot also overlook the fact that the respondent No. 1 could not produce a single witness to corroborate his allegation that the appellant wanted to separate from the family of his brother. In fact, the appellant went to the extent of asserting that she was Interested to live in a joint mess since. In the absence of the respondent No. 1, she had to live alone with her child, on the aforesaid evidence on record, the conclusion is Inevitable that no earnest attempt has been or is being made by the respondent No. 1 to make their marriage work. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 has broken down Irretrievably. As held by the Apex Court in Shyam Sunder Kohli AIR 2004 SC 5111 (supra), it is only in extreme circumstances that the Court may use this ground for dissolving a marriage. This cannot be one of the extreme circumstances contemplated by the Apex Court therein for dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 on the ground of Irretrievable breakdown. On the contrary, this is a case in which the husband is attempting to take advantage of his conduct In sabotaging his marriage with the appellant. Under (he circumstances, the impugned decree Is not sustainable in law. 10. The result of the foregoing discussion is that this appeal is allowed. The impugned decree is hereby set aside. However, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed